[Blindtlk] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers

justin williams justin.williams2 at gmail.com
Thu Aug 8 01:38:26 UTC 2013


Absolutely not.  

-----Original Message-----
From: blindtlk [mailto:blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of David
Andrews
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 9:20 PM
To: blindtlk at nfbnet.org
Subject: [Blindtlk] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility
Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers


>
>From: Howell, Scott (HQ-LE050)
>Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 5:00 AM
>To: Moore, Craig E. (MSFC-EV43)
>Subject: Fwd: Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility 
>Requirement Be Waived for E-Book Readers
>
>
>
>Craig,
>
>
>
>Sharing as information.
>
>
>
>
>
>Begin forwarded message:
>
>
>
>Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be 
>Waived for E-Book Readers
>
>
>
>
>Details
>
>
>
>The ) Twenty-First Century Communications and Video ) Accessibility Act 
>of 2010 requires companies who make electronic devices to make them 
>accessible to people with disabilities. At this time, none of the Ebook 
>readers that are on the market meet this requirement. Since many 
>companies feel that this requirement should not apply to Ebook readers, 
>Amazon, Kobo, and Sony have submitted a petition to the FCC asking for 
>a waiver. According to the petition, this is the definition of an Ebook 
>reader: "E-readers, sometimes called e-book readers, are mobile 
>electronic devices that are designed, marketed and used primarily for 
>the purpose of reading digital documents, including e-books and 
>periodicals." Since Ebook readers are primarily designed for print 
>reading, the companies are arguing that the disabled community would 
>not significantly benefit from these devices becoming accessible. They 
>also argue that because the devices are so simple, making the changes 
>to the devices to make them accessible, would cause them to be heavier, 
>have poorer battery life, and raise the cost of the devices.
>Finally, these companies argue that since their apps are accessible on 
>other devices such as the iPad and other full featured tablets, that 
>they are already providing access to their content.
>We've posted the complete filing from the FCC's website below. Here is 
>a <http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022314526>link to the 
>original .PDF
>
>Before the
>FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>Washington, D.C. 20554
>In the Matter of )
>  )
>Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No. 10-213 
>Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the ) Twenty-First Century 
>Communications and Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 )
>  )
>  )
>Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 ) of the Communications Act 
>and Part 14 of the ) Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to ) Advanced 
>Communications Services (ACS) and ) Equipment by People with 
>Disabilities )
>To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau COALITION OF 
>E-READER MANUFACTURERS PETITION FOR WAIVER Gerard J. Waldron Daniel H. 
>Kahn COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
>1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
>Washington, D.C. 20004-2401
>(202) 662-6000
>Counsel for the Coalition of E-Reader
>Manufacturers
>May 16, 2013
>TABLE OF CONTENTS
>I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
>...........................................................................
....
>1
>II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT 
>...........................................
>2
>III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING 
>...............................................
>3
>A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for Reading 
>..............................................
>4
>B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for ACS 
>...............................................
>6
>IV. THE REQUESTED WAIVER WILL ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST ................
>8
>Before the
>FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>Washington, D.C. 20554
>In the Matter of )
>  )
>Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the ) CG Docket No. 10-213 
>Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the ) Twenty-First Century 
>Communications and Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 )
>  )
>  )
>Petition for Waiver of Sections 716 and 717 ) of the Communications Act 
>and Part 14 of the ) Commission’s Rules Requiring Access to ) Advanced 
>Communications Services (ACS) and ) Equipment by People with 
>Disabilities )
>To: Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau PETITION FOR WAIVER 
>I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
>  Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 617(h)(1) and 47  C.F.R. §§ 1.3, 14.5, the 
>Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers
>1
>  (hereinafter, “Coalition”) respectfully  requests that the Commission 
>waive the accessibility requirements for equipment used for advanced 
>communications services
>(ACS) for
>a single class of equipment: e-readers. This Petition demonstrates that 
>e-readers are devices designed, built, and marketed for a single 
>primary purpose: to read written material such as books, magazines, 
>newspapers, and other text documents on a mobile electronic device.
>The
>public interest would be served by granting this petition because the 
>theoretical ACS ability of e- readers is irrelevant to how the 
>overwhelming majority of users actually use the devices.
>Moreover, the features and content available on e-readers are available 
>on a wide range of multi-
>1 The Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers consists of 
><http://Amazon.com/>Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.; and Sony Electronics 
>Inc.
>purpose equipment, including tablets, phones, and computers, all of 
>which possess integrated audio, speakers, high computing processing 
>power, and applications that are optimized for ACS.
>  As explained below, e-readers are a distinct  class of equipment 
>built for the specific purpose of reading. They are designed with 
>special features optimized for the reading experience and are marketed 
>as devices for reading. Although they have a similar shape and size to 
>general-purpose tablet computers, e-readers lack many of tablets’ 
>features for general-purpose computing, including ACS functions. 
>E-readers simply are not designed, built, or marketed for ACS, and the 
>public understands the distinction between e-readers and 
>general-purpose tablets.
>Granting the petition is in the public interest because rendering ACS 
>accessible on e-readers would require fundamentally altering the 
>devices to be more like general-purpose tablets in cost, form factor, 
>weight, user interface, and reduced battery life, and yet the necessary 
>changes, if they were made, would not yield a meaningful benefit to 
>individuals with disabilities.
>II. E-READERS ARE A DISTINCT CLASS OF EQUIPMENT
>  The Commission requires that a class waiver be  applicable to a 
>“carefully defined”
>class
>of devices that “share common defining characteristics.”
>2
>  E-readers are such a class. E-readers, sometimes called e-book 
>readers, are mobile electronic devices that are designed, marketed and 
>used primarily for the purpose of reading digital documents, including 
>e-books and periodicals.
>3
>  The noteworthy features of e-readers include  electronic ink screens 
>optimized for reading
>2 14 C.F.R. § 14.5(b); Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the 
>Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century 
>Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CG Docket No. 
>10-213, WT Docket No. 96-168, CG Docket No. 10-145, Report and Order 
>and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 14557, 14639 
>(2011) [hereinafter ACS Report and Order]; Implementation of Sections
>716 and 717 of the
>Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century 
>Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, CEA, NCTA, ESA, 
>Petitions for Class Waivers of Sections 716 and 717 of the 
>Communications Act and Part 14 of the Commission’s Rules Requiring 
>Access to Advanced Communications Services (ACS) and Equipment by 
>People with Disabilities, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 12970, 12973 (2012) 
>[hereinafter Waiver Order].
>3 “An e-reader is an electronic reading device used to view books, 
>magazines, and newspapers in a digital format.”
>What is an E-Reader?, wiseGEEK,
><http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-E-reader.htm>http://www.wisegeek.co
>m/what-is-an-E-reader.htm
>  (last visited May 16, 2013).
>(including in direct sunlight) and designed to minimize eye strain 
>during extended reading sessions. They also facilitate acquisition of 
>e-publications and their user interfaces, both hardware and software 
>features, are designed around reading as the primary user function.
>As
>explained more fully below, another important aspect of e-readers is 
>the features they do not contain, which distinguishes them from general 
>purpose devices such as tablets. Examples of e- readers include the 
>Amazon Kindle E-Reader, the Sony Reader, and the Kobo Glo.
>  In 2006, Sony launched the first e-reader  available in the U.S. 
>utilizing electronic ink, and since that time the number of 
>manufacturers and models has expanded substantially.
>4
>  Seven
>years is a long time in the modern digital age, and the public 
>understands that although e-readers may be somewhat similar in shape 
>and size to general-purpose tablets, e-readers are aimed at a specific 
>function.
>5
>  The distinctions between e-readers and tablets are explored next.
>4 Michael Sauers, History of eBooks & eReaders, Technology Innovation 
>Librarian, Nebraska Library Commission, (Oct. 14, 2011), 
><http://www.slideshare.net/nebraskaccess/history-of-e-books-ereaders>ht
>tp://www.slideshare.net/nebraskaccess/history-of-e-books-ereaders
>.
>5 Product buying guides commonly reflect this distinction. See, e.g., 
>Brian Barrett,
>5 Ways Ereaders Are Still Better
>Than Tablets, Gizmodo (Dec. 12, 2012),
><http://gizmodo.com/5970460/5-ways-ereaders-are-still-better-than-table
>ts>http://gizmodo.com/5970460/5-ways-ereaders-are-still-better-than-tab
>lets
>;
>Paul Reynolds, 5 Reasons to Buck the Tide and Buy an E-book Reader, 
><http://ConsumerReports.org/>ConsumerReports.org
>(Apr. 22, 2013),
><http://news.consumerreports.org/electronics/2013/04/5-reasons-to-buck-
>the-tide-and-buy-an-e-book-reader.html>http://news.consumerreports.org/
>electronics/2013/04/5-reasons-to-buck-the-tide-and-buy-an-e-book-reader
>.html
>.
>Wikipedia, an aggregator of knowledge and therefore a useful measure of 
>conventional understanding, differentiates e-readers from tablets, 
>explaining that, among other differences, “[t]ablet computers . . . are 
>more versatile, allowing one to consume multiple types of content . . .
>.” It states that “[a]n e-book reader,
>also called an e-book device or e-
>reader, is a mobile electronic device that is designed primarily for 
>the purpose of reading digital e-books and periodicals.” Wikipedia, 
>E-Book Reader, 
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-reader>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-r
>eader
>  (last visited May 16, 2013).
>6 47 C.F.R. § 14.5(a)(ii).
>III. E-READERS ARE USED PRIMARILY FOR READING
>  E-readers are “designed primarily for purposes other than using” ACS.
>6
>  Specifically,
>they are designed to be used for reading. 
>Moreover, they are marketed as tools for reading, and reading is their 
>predominant use. Conversely, e-readers are not designed or marketed as 
>tools for using ACS.
>A. E-Readers Are Designed and Marketed for Reading
>  In contrast to general-purpose tablets, the  features in e-readers 
>are designed and built around reading as the primary function. Features 
>that e-readers possess for reading optimization
>include:
>• Screens optimized to reduce eyestrain and prevent glare;
>7
>• Low power consumption and extremely long battery life to facilitate 
>long reading sessions and use during extended travel;
>8
>• Navigation that place reading features, including e-publication 
>acquisition, front and center;
>9
>  and
>• Built-in reading tools such as highlighting, bookmarking, and lookup 
>features.
>10
>7 See Dr. Shirley Blanc, E-readers: Better for Your Eyes?, Medcan 
>Clinic,
><http://www.medcan.com/articles/e->http://www.medcan.com/articles/e-
>readers_better_for_your_eyes/
>(last visited May 16, 2013) (“E-readers have improved the level of 
>text/background contrast, and the matte quality of the screen can 
>reduce glare even in bright sunlight.”).
>8 See Greg Bensinger, The E-Reader Revolution: 
>Over Just as It Has Begun?, Wall St.
>J., Jan. 4, 2013,
><http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323874204578219834160573
>010.html>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014241278873238742045782198
>34160573010.html
>  (stating that compared to
>tablets, “dedicated e-readers have . . . a different style of display 
>[that] improves their battery life”).
>9 See John P. Falcone, Kindle vs. Nook vs. iPad: 
>Which E-book Reader Should You Buy?,
>CNET (Dec. 17, 2012),
><http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20009738-1/kindle-vs-nook-vs-ipad-
>which-e-book-reader-should-you-buy/>http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105
>-20009738-1/kindle-vs-nook-vs-ipad-which-e-book-reader-should-you-buy/
>  (noting that an advantage of e-readers is  fewer distracting features 
>not focused on reading).
>10 See Levy Smith, Using a Kindle or eReader as a Leadership Tool 
>(Sept. 13, 2010), 
><http://www.itsworthnoting.com/productivity/using-a-kindle-or-ereader-a
>s-a-leadership-tool/>http://www.itsworthnoting.com/productivity/using-a
>-kindle-or-ereader-as-a-leadership-tool/
>  (“With an eReader, you
>can effortlessly highlight and comment as you read and either share 
>quotes or musings real time. . . .”).
>11 Falcone, supra note
>9
>.
>12 See Barrett, supra note
>5
>.
>  Product reviews emphasize the centrality of  reading to the design of 
>e-readers.
>For
>instance, technology review site CNET explains that “[i]f you want to 
>stick with ‘just reading’ . .
>. an e-ink reader is probably your best bet.”
>11
>  Similarly, popular technology blog Gizmodo explains that e-readers 
>“do one thing well . . .
>reading. And that’s a blessing.”
>12
>  Consistent with these features, e-readers are  marketed to readers 
>with one activity in
>mind: reading. For example, on the Amazon product listing for the 5th 
>generation Kindle E- Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page 
>describing the device contain phrases referring to books or reading, 
>including “lighter than a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads 
>like paper,”
>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” 
>“[m]assive book selection,” “books
>by best-
>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.”
>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device 
>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than 
>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,”
>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” 
>“[m]assive book selection,” “books
>by best-
>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.”
>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device 
>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than 
>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,”
>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” 
>“[m]assive book selection,” “books
>by best-
>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.”
>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device 
>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than 
>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,”
>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” 
>“[m]assive book selection,” “books
>by best-
>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.”
>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device 
>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than 
>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,”
>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” 
>“[m]assive book selection,” “books
>by best-
>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.”
>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device 
>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than 
>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,”
>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” 
>“[m]assive book selection,” “books
>by best-
>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.”
>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device 
>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than 
>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,”
>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” 
>“[m]assive book selection,” “books
>by best-
>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.”
>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device 
>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than 
>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,”
>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” 
>“[m]assive book selection,” “books
>by best-
>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.”
>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device 
>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than 
>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,”
>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” 
>“[m]assive book selection,” “books
>by best-
>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.”
>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device 
>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than 
>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,”
>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” 
>“[m]assive book selection,” “books
>by best-
>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.”
>Reader, all nine bullets at the top of the page describing the device 
>contain phrases referring to books or reading, including “lighter than 
>a paperback,” “for easier reading,” “[r]eads like paper,”
>“[d]ownload books,” “[h]olds over 1,000 books,” 
>“[m]assive book selection,” “books
>by best-
>selling authors,” “[s]upports children’s books,” and “[l]ending [l]ibrary.”
>13 Amazon Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink Product Listing, 
><http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007HCCNJU/>http://www.amazon.com/gp/
>product/B007HCCNJU/
>  (last
>visited May 16, 2013).
>14 Id.
>15 Kobo Aura HD Overview,
><http://www.kobo.com/koboaurahd>http://www.kobo.com/koboaurahd
>  (last visited May 16, 2013).
>16 Sony Reader,
><https://ebookstore.sony.com/reader/>https://ebookstore.sony.com/reader
>/
>  (last visited May 16, 2013).
>17 Sony Reader Product Listing,
><http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalo
>gId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=->http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/store
>s/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-
>1&identifier=S_Portable_Reader
>  (last visited May 16, 2013).
>18 Ofcom, Communications Market Report 2012, at 7 (July 18, 2012), 
><http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr12/CMR_UK_20
>12.pdf>http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/cmr/cmr12/CMR
>_UK_2012.pdf
>.
>  Not surprisingly based on this design and  marketing, e-readers are 
>used overwhelmingly for reading. An Ofcom analysis on the 
>communications marketplace in the U.K. states that “almost all 
>consumers use their e-reader to read books.”
>18
>  Indicative of the utility of e-readers for reading, multiple studies 
>show that reading electronically on an e-reader increases the amount of 
>time individuals spend reading.
>for reading, multiple studies show that reading electronically on an 
>e-reader increases the amount of time individuals spend reading.
>for reading, multiple studies show that reading electronically on an 
>e-reader increases the amount of time individuals spend reading.
>19 See id. (“E-readers have a positive impact on the amount people 
>read.”); Lee Rainie et al., Pew Internet & American Life Project, The 
>Rise of E-Reading, Apr. 4, 2012,
><http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/04/04/the-rise-of->http://librar
>ies.pewinternet.org/2012/04/04/the-rise-of-
>e-reading/
>  (“On any given day 56% of those who own e-book  reading devices are 
>reading a book, compared with 45% of the general book-reading public 
>who are reading a book on a typical day.”); Geoffrey A. Fowler & Marie 
>C.
>Baca, The ABCs of E-Reading, Wall St. J., Aug. 24, 2010, 
><http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703846604575448093175758
>872.html>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487038466045754480
>93175758872.html
>  (explaining that a study of
>1,200 e-reader owners by Marketing and Research Resources Inc. 
>concludes that “[p]eople who buy e-readers tend to spend more time than 
>ever with their nose in a book.”).
>20 Bensinger, supra note
>8
>.
>21 Piotr Kowalczyk, These 12 Questions Will Help You Choose Between 
>Tablet and E-reader, eBook Friendly (Apr.
>8, 2013),
> 
><http://ebookfriendly.com/2013/04/08/tablet-or-ereader-questionnaire/>h
>ttp://ebookfriendly.com/2013/04/08/tablet-or-ereader-questionnaire/
>  (“E-paper screens are not meant for
>active usage – their refresh rate is too low.”).
>22 Bensinger, supra note
>8
>  (stating that, unlike e-readers, “ever cheaper  tablet computers can 
>be used . .
>. as Web
>browsers, game consoles and cameras”).
>23 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note
>13
>  (comparing hard drive capacities of Kindle e-reader versus tablet 
>devices).
>24 See, e.g., id.
>B. E-Readers Are Not Designed or Marketed for ACS
>  E-readers are not general-purpose devices and  lack the features and 
>broad capabilities of tablets. Instead, as discussed above, they are 
>optimized only for reading and obtaining reading material. Features 
>common to tablets that e-readers consistently lack include:
>• Color screens;
>20
>• Screens with fast refresh rates sufficient for interaction and video;
>21
>• Cameras;
>22
>• High-capacity storage sufficient for multimedia files;
>23
>  and
>• Higher-powered CPU processors and GPU processors for accelerated
graphics.
>24
>Additionally, e-readers typically do not possess microphones or quality 
>speakers.
>  Examination of an e-reader establishes that  these devices are not 
>designed with ACS as an intended feature, even on a secondary basis.
>These purposeful hardware limitations
>drive e-
>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot 
>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate audio 
>output or record audio input.
>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot 
>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate audio 
>output or record audio input.
>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot 
>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate audio 
>output or record audio input.
>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot 
>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate audio 
>output or record audio input.
>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot 
>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate audio 
>output or record audio input.
>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot 
>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate audio 
>output or record audio input.
>readers’ primary purpose: reading. As a result, e-readers cannot 
>display videos at an acceptable quality, and most cannot generate audio 
>output or record audio input.
>25 Staples, Tablet Versus eReader,
><http://www.staples.com/sbd/cre/marketing/technology-research->http://w
>ww.staples.com/sbd/cre/marketing/technology-research-
>centers/tablets/tablets-versus-ereaders.html
>  (last visited May 16, 2013) (“Tablets give you far more options for 
>multimedia as well. They can upload and play audio and of course video 
>. . . .”).
>26 See, e.g., Kowalczyk, supra note
>21
>  (“You can use [tablets] for other
> [non-reading] purposes, like emails, social media, web browsing, 
>video, games.”).
>27 Bensinger, supra note
>8
>  (stating that e-readers have “more-limited  capabilities, which often 
>include monochrome screens and rudimentary Web surfing” while “[t]ablet 
>computers . . . have . . . full Web browsing.”).
>28 See, e.g., Kindle 5th Generation E-Ink, supra note
>13
>; Kobo Aura HD, supra note
>15
>; Sony Reader Product
>Listing, supra note
>17
>. Kindle e-readers offer a feature by which users and their 
>pre-approved contacts can e-mail pre-existing document so that the 
>documents can be read on the Kindle. However, this is a feature to 
>facilitate reading of pre-existing documents in an E-Ink format; it is 
>not marketed as or useful as a tool for real-time or near real-time 
>text-based communication between individuals. See Kindle 5th Generation 
>E-Ink, supra note
>13
>.
>  E-readers are not marketed based on their  ability to access ACS. The 
>webpage listings for e-readers do not mention or describe any ACS 
>features such as e-mail, instant messaging, calling, VoIP, or 
>interoperable video conferencing (or video at all).
>28
>  That is consistent with the
>fact that e-readers are marketed as devices for reading, not for 
>general-purpose use. In fact, many view the absence of robust 
>communication tools on e-readers as a welcome break from distraction 
>rather than as a limitation. For instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer 
>Reports explains that “I read with fewer interruptions (so more 
>rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as easily distract myself by 
>checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap or two.”
>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a 
>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For 
>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with 
>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as 
>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap 
>or two.”
>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a 
>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For 
>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with 
>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as 
>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap 
>or two.”
>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a 
>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For 
>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with 
>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as 
>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap 
>or two.”
>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a 
>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For 
>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with 
>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as 
>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap 
>or two.”
>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a 
>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For 
>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with 
>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as 
>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap 
>or two.”
>many view the absence of robust communication tools on e-readers as a 
>welcome break from distraction rather than as a limitation. For 
>instance, Paul Reynolds of Consumer Reports explains that “I read with 
>fewer interruptions (so more rapidly) on a reader--since I can’t as 
>easily distract myself by checking e-mail or news headlines with a tap 
>or two.”
>29 Reynolds, supra note
>5
>.
>30 Falcone, supra note
>9
>. Another reviewer states, “I’m not interested in the tablet e-readers; 
>I want a dedicated reading device without the distraction of Twitter or 
>games or email. I want the contrast and readability of e Ink. I want 
>access to the best and most varied content.
>I want a battery life the length
>of War and Peace (months). I want a
>device that is light in the hand . . . .” Laura Jane, This is My Next: 
>Kindle Paperwhite, The Verge (Sept. 6, 2012), 
><http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/6/3298500/this-is-my-next-kindle-paperw
>hite>http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/6/3298500/this-is-my-next-kindle-pa
>perwhite
>.
>31 John Cook, Kobo Opens a New Chapter, Introduces ‘Touch’ To E-reader, 
>Geekwire (May 23, 2011), 
><http://www.geekwire.com/2011/chapter-electronic-readers-kobo-introduce
>s-touch-electronic-readers/>http://www.geekwire.com/2011/chapter-electr
>onic-readers-kobo-introduces-touch-electronic-readers/
>.
>IV. THE REQUESTED WAIVER WILL ADVANCE THE PUBLIC INTEREST Rendering ACS 
>accessible on e-readers would require fundamentally altering the 
>devices and it may not be possible to meet that requirement and 
>maintain e-readers as inexpensive mobile reading devices, and yet the 
>necessary changes, if they were made, would not yield a meaningful 
>benefit to individuals with disabilities. As described above, e-readers 
>are not designed to provide ACS features and applications. Any consumer 
>who uses a browser on an e- reader to access ACS would have a very 
>low-quality experience. Rendering ACS accessible for disabled persons 
>on e-readers would impose substantial and ongoing engineering, 
>hardware, and licensing costs because the devices would first have to 
>be redesigned and optimized for ACS. It would be necessary to add 
>hardware such as speakers, more powerful processors, and
>faster-
>refreshing screens. It also would be necessary to revise the software 
>interface in e-readers to build in infrastructure for ACS and then 
>render that infrastructure accessible. In short, the mandate would be 
>to convert e-readers into something they are not: a general purpose 
>device.
>  It is not merely cost but the very nature of a  specialized e-reader 
>device that is at issue.
>Adding a substantial range of hardware and new software changes the 
>fundamental nature of e- reader devices. A requirement to make these 
>changes would alter the devices’ form factor, weight, and battery life 
>and could undercut the distinctive features, advantages, price point, 
>and viability of e-readers. In particular, the higher power consumption 
>necessary to support a faster refresh rate necessary for 
>high-interaction activities such as email would put e-reader power 
>consumption on par with that of a tablet, whereas today the lower power 
>consumption and resulting far-longer battery life of e-readers is a key 
>selling point.
>  As a result of all of these changes, e-readers  would be far more 
>similar to general-purpose tablets in design, features, battery life, 
>and cost, possibly rendering single-purpose devices redundant. Today, 
>many Americans choose to own both a tablet and an e-reader. According 
>to a recent Pew study, as of November 2012, 19% of Americans age 16 and 
>older own an e-reader, 25% own a tablet, and 11% own both an e-reader 
>and a tablet.
>32
>  Consistent with this purchasing
>pattern, Gizmodo warns its readers, “don’t assume that because you have 
>[a tablet], you don’t
>32 Lee Rainie & Maeve Duggan, E-book Reading Jumps; Print Book Reading 
>Declines, Pew Internet & American Life Project, Dec. 27, 2012,
><http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/12/27/e-book-reading-jumps-print
>-book-reading->http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/12/27/e-book-readi
>ng-jumps-print-book-reading-
>declines/
>.
>need [an e-reader].”
>need [an e-reader].”
>need [an e-reader].”
>need [an e-reader].”
>need [an e-reader].”
>need [an e-reader].”
>need [an e-reader].”
>33 Barrett, supra note
>5
>. As explained below, this quote does not apply to individuals who are 
>blind or have low vision, for whom e-readers do not provide additional 
>functionality that is not available from a more versatile smartphone or 
>tablet.
>34 Innovations developed for e-readers in recent years include that 
>“[t]he devices looked sleeker, they were easier to read, they weighed 
>less, their pages turned faster, and they held more books. Wireless 
>capability allowed users to download novels, magazines and newspapers 
>wherever they were, whenever they wanted, and now the devices allow for 
>reading in the dark.” Bensinger, supra note
>8
>. More recently, “[t]here have also been major improvements in 
>e-readers, including touch-screen technology and self-lighting 
>screens.” Id.
>35 The Commission has recognized that “if the inclusion of an 
>accessibility feature in a product or service results in a fundamental 
>alteration of that product or service, then it is per se not achievable 
>to include that accessibility function.” ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC 
>Rcd at 14610. The House Report similarly states that “if the inclusion 
>of a feature in a product or service results in a fundamental 
>alteration of that service or product, it is per se not achievable to 
>include that feature.” H.R. Rep.
>No. 111-563, at 24-25 (2010) (“House
>Report”). While the
>achievability and primary purpose waiver analyses differ, this 
>demonstrates that Congress and the Commission recognize that requiring 
>a fundamental alteration is not in the public interest or consistent 
>with the CVAA.
>36 House Report at 26; S. Rep. No. 111-386, at 8 (2010).
>  In enacting the CVAA, Congress did not intend  to mandate the 
>effective elimination of a niche product primarily designed for non-ACS 
>uses merely because of the presence of an ancillary browser 
>purpose-built to support reading activities on some devices within the 
>class.
>As both the Senate and House Reports explained in describing the 
>primary purpose waiver provision embodied in Section 716(h), “[f]or 
>example, a device designed for a purpose unrelated to accessing 
>advanced communications might also provide, on an incidental basis, 
>access to such services. In this case, the Commission may find that to 
>promote technological innovation the accessibility requirements need 
>not apply.”
>36
>  The example of e-readers is just the “incidental basis” ACS that 
>Congress intended for the waiver provision to encompass.
>  Finally, rendering e-readers accessible would  not substantially 
>benefit individuals with disabilities. Persons with disabilities, 
>including individuals who are blind and wish to access e- books and 
>other electronic publications, would have a poor ACS experience even on 
>accessible e-reader devices. Because of the inherent limitations of 
>browsers in e-readers, a fact that will not change without a wholesale 
>redesign of e-readers, the ACS experience on such devices is suboptimal 
>whether a user has disabilities or not.
>  Further, individuals with disabilities have  accessible options 
>today, and these options will soon expand significantly even if the 
>waiver is granted. For the niche purpose of reading, high- quality free 
>alternatives to e-readers are available. The free Kindle Reading, Sony 
>Reader, and Kobo eReading apps, which provide access to the same range 
>of e-publications available to the owners of the respective companies’ 
>e-readers (and in some cases a greater range), are available for free 
>on an array of mobile phones, tablets, PCs, and Macs.
>37
>  Makers of tablets, smartphones,
>and computers are working actively to make their general-purpose 
>audio-enabled devices accessible, consistent with the CVAA. As required 
>by the CVAA, ACS will be accessible on these devices, all of which have 
>integrated audio, speakers, high computing processing power, and 
>applications that are optimized for ACS.
>Moreover, the accessibility that is
>required by the
>CVAA will ensure that many of the “layers” of these devices will 
>support and provide accessibility features and capabilities that are of 
>value beyond the purely ACS context.
>38
>  Put
>simply, individuals with disabilities have better ACS options on 
>devices other than e-readers.
>37 Falcone, supra note
>9
>. Additionally, users can read books via the Web on all of the services 
>but Sony Reader. Id.
>38 See ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at
>14584-85 (identifying eight key “layers”
>of devices and explaining
>that “[f]or individuals with disabilities to use an advanced 
>communications service, all of these components may have to support 
>accessibility features and capabilities”).
>  A waiver of the Commission’s rule is justified  because, in contrast 
>to other classes of equipment for which temporary waivers have been 
>granted, e-readers are a well-established class that is not 
>experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose device.
>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose
device.
>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose
device.
>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose
device.
>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose
device.
>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose
device.
>that is not experiencing “convergence” toward becoming a multipurpose
device.
>39 Cf. Waiver Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 12977-78, 12981, 12990-91 
>(describing possibility of convergence in classes of devices for which 
>waivers were granted).
>40 Moreover, it is generally expected that demand for e-readers will 
>continue well into the future. One study by the Market Intelligence & 
>Consulting Institute projects 23.0 million units of e-reader sales 
>worldwide in 2016. See eMarketer, Ereader Shipments on the Rise (Nov. 
>8, 2012),
><http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Ereader-Shipments->http://www.emarket
>er.com/Article/Ereader-Shipments-
>on-Rise/1009471
>. A different study by IHS iSuppli projects worldwide sales of 
>e-readers at 7.1 million units in 2016. See Barrett, supra note
>5
>. Assessing the more pessimistic of these studies, Gizmodo concludes 
>that e-readers are “great, they’re cheap, and they're not going 
>anywhere.” Id.
>41 Accordingly, a waiver that extends across multiple generations is 
>justified. See ACS Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 14640.
>* * *
>  For the reasons set forth above, and  consistent with Section 716 of 
>the Act and the Commission’s rules, the Coalition requests that the 
>Commission grant the e-reader class waiver, as is consistent with the 
>public interest.
>Respectfully submitted,
>Gerard J. Waldron
>Daniel H. Kahn
>COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
>1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
>Washington, D.C. 20004-2401
>(202) 662-6000
>Counsel for <http://Amazon.com/>Amazon.com, Inc.; Kobo Inc.; and Sony 
>Electronics Inc.
>May 16, 2013
>Displaying 2 comments.
>
><http://www.blindbargains.com/view.php?u=1260>jcast yesterday 11:53 PM ET:
>
>To me, there seems to be no excuse for leave accessibility out of these 
>devices. The claim that incorporating accessibility will make the 
>e-book readers heavier and have less battery life is utterly 
>ridiculous. There are so many examples of accessible mobile devices 
>these days which work perfectly and for which accessibility is 
>transparent or not even known to those not needing it. Amazon and Sony, 
>do what you wish, but your actions will reflect equally on you.
><http://www.blindbargains.com/view.php?u=1260>jcast today 2:25 PM ET:
>
>You must be logged in to post comments.
>
>
>Share this Post
>
>
>
>
>
>----------
><http://www.blindbargains.com/b/9286>http://www.blindbargains.com/b/928
>6
>
>
>
>Scott
>
>Sent from my iPhone
_______________________________________________
blindtlk mailing list
blindtlk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindtlk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindtlk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindtlk_nfbnet.org/justin.williams2%40gma
il.com





More information about the BlindTlk mailing list